Inalienable rights can be summed up by 2 basic rights:

1.) The right to self-determination.

2.) The right to private property.

Every single inalienable right is of one, or the other, or both, all the while not infringing on either of someone else.

Hello DrJoelBross,
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another." John Locke
http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497

Respectfully,
O.A.

JB:
The critics were, as they often are - wrong. There are some people who are so wrapped up in their elite-ism and because they have a certain degree they cannot understand that a TV show, Science Fiction no less, can possibly add anything to a philosophic discussion.

Rand's definition of rights is the standard to be observed. To most of us (meaning The Gulch) it is obvious, to most of the world, it is a murky mystery.

On a desert island when you are alone, the issue of "rights" is a bit moot. Isnt the real issue the right of OTHER people to interfere with my life (and vice-versa) when there are more than one of us?

Or am I missing something.

Well, my cat would certainly agree with you. He definitely gets upset if I interfere with his right to his own life !!

Well said. There must be a capacity for reasoning before one can have rights.

Mike Marotta... Ms. Rand did once write about rights, the first question when someone is rambling on about their "rights" should be, "At whose expense". If the answer is "no ones" then proceed, simple.

If a being can't conceptualize the term "rights" then that being can't have "rights".
The thought of rights stems from a conceptual faculty.

For instance: My cats are well taken care of and they know that they need (and demand) food from me. They don't have a "right" to me feeding them. I do it because they are good to me and I to them.

The BLM movement folks have a "right" to act for their betterment. They don't have a "right" to destroy...etc.

I think that there is a great deal of confusion about the term "rights" and thank you for your lexicon references.

Armin Shimerman did a fine job playing the State Science Institute villain in AS1. Star Trek: TNG did like to make fun of capitalism with the Rules of Acquisition. Part of the humor was in the correctness of those Rules.

While we cannot grant the right to life to the Zika Virus, it may be that other creatures do have some rights based on the extent of their capacity for volition. So far, that is just theory. We do not have good experiments, but I admit that we might not have them for humans, either. We may be giving in to a taxonomic fallacy: it looks like me, so it must be like me in the ways that I define myself -- and we know that is not true.

Her journals suggest that Ayn Rand toyed with the idea that people who are not rational are not human. However, she had no litmus test, so it was just a line entry for herself, and never made the light of day -- and perhaps well and good that it did not.

Rights are conditions required for life in society. If we had apes and dolphins among us as economic actors, they would have to have rights.

As for the status of software, as I pointed out on my blog, if self-aware programs were economic actors here and now, you might not be aware of it. Filings for corporations are electronic. You have no idea who initiated a filing.

Thanks, James. I have not seen that episode with the exocomps. I will have to keep an eye out for it.

I agree that you took unfair criticism on that other discussion. A couple of factors were in play.

First, I believe that dhalling's analyses of various science fiction universes have been interesting even if misplaced. You do not judge a work of art on its politics. Ayn Rand liked the first James Bond movie. She did not criticize the hero for risking his life to defend the welfare state. Similarly, she admired Victor Hugo. She did not take him to task for failing to analyze the French Revolution from the perspective of laissez faire capitalism. And no one cares what Rachmaninoff's politics were.

That said, I also have voiced my disapproval of the anti-capitalist themes in the Star Trek franchises. Only with the rise of the Ferengi and Quark did that improve. (Note that Armin Shimerman is a Rand fan.)

But Star Trek, like much else that is admirable, is the result of the mixed-premise philosophies of many people working together over time. It cannot be consistent Objectivism, nor does it need to be. Sense of life, plot, and theme are all that matter.

Again, though, the ideas in the plot can be politically correct (objectively correct) or not. And I believe that often in Star Trek, they are.

Also, finally, politics is not all that important. Epistemology and metaphysics rule. And Star Trek stories are based on reality and reason.

Well done MM. Rather than saying- these are the sort of things I like and should be called rights, taking the argument back as far it can go is more useful as well as logical.

As to 'volitional beings', I am unconvinced that software can be 'self-aware' and would qualify for rights anyway.
For non-human animals, yes but at the risk of being called speciesist (spelling?),
not equal rights. We are faced now with the usual so-called progressives demanding human rights for apes and amoeba.

I was widely and incorrectly criticized when I compared the philosophy of Star Trek: The Next Generation to Objectivism. It is the "Measure of a Man" episode you referred to that I think of first regarding such a comparison.

The theme was furthered in an episode where Data defended the right to exist of three "exocomps", using the same logic used to defend his own rights:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Th...

This has been discussed often. Some libertarians deny the existence of inalienable rights because governments and others violate them all the time. That ignores the meaning of "inalienable."

If we are going to have a rational discussion, it is best to begin with a common understanding of the key concepts.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) - Ayn Rand Lexicon here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ind...

Rand had much more to say, of course.

Based on her analysis, I believe that all volitional beings have rights: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... That would include self-aware software, and maybe cetaceans, among others.

I refer you to the Star Trek: Next Generation episode "Measure of a Man"which I found fully consistent with the understanding of rights found (perhaps only) in Objectivism. (Summarized on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mea...The_Next_Generation)
and Memory Alpha here: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Th...(episode) )